I took the sources from wiki and tatar community. My edits were constructive. You appear biased. What did I do wrong? Vofa (talk) 20:09, 8 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your contributions to Libyan Tatars. Unfortunately, I do not think it is ready for publishing at this time because it has no sources.
I have converted your article to a draft which you can improve, undisturbed for a while.
You went along,committed sockpuppetry,just 4 hours ago. You reverted my edits on my pages,you are going to be persecuted,and possibly banned. WP:ANI is going to investigate you. If you wish to settlement talk,I have a few proposals: Don’t sockpuppet me,or anyone else on this platform,your name gives off that you’re a pan turkist. I’ve seen your edits. My edits have sources,if you will not make up a relevant reason for reverting and deleting my edits like you wrote ,,Rv,, as explanation for deleting my contributions you’re going to get banned. I did not vandalise Turkic languages page,while you did. I am going to restore all three pages you vandalised : Turkic Languages,Urums and Nogais. Im giving you an hour from now on to respond. Vofa (talk) 17:41, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
you can add but the source about turkey is broken and nogais are a turkic people and it is already mentioned on the language page that they speak kipchak Turkiishh (talk) 15:56, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes,language groups differ from ethnic groups. Is this your only excuse? The source isn’t broken,you put them into the bar and press enter. In this case,please revert changes. Vofa (talk) 16:11, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hi! Your edit gave a source and was constructive, so it shouldn't have been reverted, although you need to include the link inside the ref (and not just in the edit summary) so it shows up. So, something like <ref>https://www.researchgate.net/publication/334168544_The_main_phases_of_the_earliest_Nogais'_history_in_Kazakhstan</ref> (and same for the other ones). Good luck! (On another note, you shouldn't accuse someone of sockpuppetry without evidence, but if you do have evidence, I invite you to present it at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations rather than on this talk page) Chaotıċ Enby (talk · contribs) 20:53, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You have recently edited a page related to Eastern Europe or the Balkans, a topic designated as contentious. This is a brief introduction to contentious topics and does not imply that there are any issues with your editing.
A special set of rules applies to certain topic areas, which are referred to as contentious topics. These are specially designated topics that tend to attract more persistent disruptive editing than the rest of the project and have been designated as contentious topics by the Arbitration Committee. When editing a contentious topic, Wikipedia’s norms and policies are more strictly enforced, and Wikipedia administrators have special powers in order to reduce disruption to the project.
Within contentious topics, editors should edit carefully and constructively, refrain from disrupting the encyclopedia, and:
adhere to the purposes of Wikipedia;
comply with all applicable policies and guidelines;
follow editorial and behavioural best practice;
comply with any page restrictions in force within the area of conflict; and
refrain from gaming the system.
Editors are advised to err on the side of caution if unsure whether making a particular edit is consistent with these expectations. If you have any questions about contentious topics procedures you may ask them at the arbitration clerks' noticeboard or you may learn more about this contentious topic here. You may also choose to note which contentious topics you know about by using the {{Ctopics/aware}} template. Please also read the talk header section of pages in this topic area for possible additional information and editing restrictions. It does not appear that this notice has been posted to your talk page. If it has already been left already by another editor, please let me know. If you have questions, please request help at the Teahouse. // Timothy :: talk21:38, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Ive read your notice,it appears that I’ll be blocked if I edit something again,as it seems. I’m gonna give up,since I don’t see a way I can compromise with the guy,the rules were comprehensive. That said,I’ll edit one page about Nogais with my source which was constructive. Vofa (talk) 00:33, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for reading the notice. You are not going to be blocked, but if the dispute at Urums had continued much farther, both of you may have been. This is the reason I stepped in to stop the problem - so no one would be blocked. If I thought the best solution was to have you blocked, I would have let it go on past the point of no return. I didn't, but spent the time to post material to help you both understand how Wikipedia works.
Whether you decide to return to the article is up to you. My suggestion to you is to find multiple sources, preferably academic, certainly independent and reliable. This is the key to productively editing Wikipedia, especially in areas designated as contentious, such as eastern Europe and southwest Asia.
This is not a dispute I am going to become involved in, but it may be helpful to consider if both of you are partially correct, and something more nuanced beyond a binary this or that is actually what independent reliable sources supports.
Thank you! Yes,I immediately understood what was in store for me,I decided to withdraw and give in, he was in the right anyway. Vofa (talk) 05:47, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, Vofa, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Unfortunately, one or more of your recent edits did not conform to Wikipedia's verifiability policy, and may have been removed. Wikipedia articles should refer only to facts and interpretations verified in reliable, reputable print or online sources or in other reliable media. Always provide a reliable source for quotations and for any material that is likely to be challenged, or it may be removed. Wikipedia also has a related policy against including original research in articles.
Hello, Vofa. This is a bot-delivered message letting you know that Draft:Libyan Tatars, a page you created, has not been edited in at least 5 months. Drafts that have not been edited for six months may be deleted, so if you wish to retain the page, please edit it again or request that it be moved to your userspace.
If the page has already been deleted, you can request it be undeleted so you can continue working on it.
In accordance with our policy that Wikipedia is not for the indefinite hosting of material, the draft has been deleted. When you plan on working on it further and you wish to retrieve it, you can request its undeletion. An administrator will, in most cases, restore the submission so you can continue to work on it.
Hi, please read WP:MINOR. Most of the "minor" edits in your edit history are in fact major, but using the "minor" flag hides them from some editors' Watchlists. I would suggest you to stop using the flag altogether. You can say "minor" in the edit summary instead. Jähmefyysikko (talk) 17:36, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I am not sure what you meant in your edit summary that the "auto-patrolling user might be malfunctioning". This article is on my watchlist. Tajik is not used in Afghanistan, the variety used there is called Dari. Tajik is written in the Cyrillic alphabet; clearly this is not used in Afghanistan. Mellk (talk) 08:02, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hello Vofa,
Regarding your edits on the Kazakhs page, I am trying to restore the original version of the text that existed until October 12, before it was vandalized by some users who made changes without providing any references or academic papers to support their edits. However, you've reverted my restoration attempts several times.
Here are the specific issues with the edits:
- The user added the following information: "The President of Mongolia, Punsalmaagiin Ochirbat, stated that 'Kazakh women in Mongolia will now be offered sterilization in exchange for money and resources.'" This is incorrect and fake information. Please review the reference provided by this editor, as there is no connection between the information on the website and the edit made.
- Regarding the origin of the Kazakhs, there are numerous academic papers on this topic. Please refer to references 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, and 31 in the list of references on the Kazakhs Wikipedia page for detailed information about their origins. These sources clearly state the mixed origins of the Kazakhs.
- Edit stating that "Mongols may dislike Kazakh traditions, culture, or their presence in Mongolia overall" lacks valid references to support this claim. Please review the website provided by the editor as the reference, as there is no information related to disliking traditions, culture, or similar claims. Additionally, this statement is inflammatory. Please ensure that any future edits are supported by credible sources.
I hope we can resolve this issue by maintaining Wikipedia's standard for accuracy and reliable references. Appreciate your attention to this matter. Nomadichistory (talk) 18:40, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I have reviewed the sources that you have presented. They are not relevant to the edits I’ve made. I erased personal opinions which may be contentious, highly-controversial or recently disproven. Those opinions do not qualify as a source and do not have a source attached to them. This may be original research, which is not welcomed on Wikipedia. Please, elaborate on what might be the issue for you at the recently edited Kazakhs page. I will give you a 30 minute deadline to defend your rationale. Vofa (talk) 15:38, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I must respectfully disagree with your assessment. The content I have provided is based on well-established academic sources, not personal opinions. These sources include works from Brill, Oxford, PubMed, Britannica, and well-known academic journals recognized by Scopus, as well as respected scholars in the field. They are highly relevant to the topic and are cited accordingly.
Regarding your statement on original research, I assure you that the material presented adheres to Wikipedia's standards of verifiability and reliable sourcing. I am more than willing to discuss specific issues on the talk page, but imposing arbitrary deadlines for responses is not conducive to constructive dialogue. Wikipedia encourages collaboration, and I believe we should focus on ensuring the accuracy of the page, rather than rushing discussions.
Please note that making edits to the text without providing credible sources is not acceptable and goes against Wikipedia's guidelines.
These sources are directly relevant to the origin of the Kazakhs, demonstrating their Turkic and Mongolic heritage. For instance, one source states: "In 15th-century Central Asia, the nomads of the Jochid Ulus, including those who founded the Kazakh Khanate, were collectively called Uzbeks due to their conversion to Islam under Uzbek Khan (r. 1313–1341)... These Uzbeks arose from the merging of the Mongols and various Turkic groups in the 13th and 14th centuries in the Mongol states of the Qipchaq Steppe. It was from this Jochid/Uzbek ulus (people) that the Kazakh identity emerged..." (Source: “Kazakh Khanate.” In The Oxford Research Encyclopedia of Asian History. Ed. David Ludden. New York: Oxford University Press.)
This does not confirm your conclusions about the origins of Kazakhs. The Kazakh ethnic group was formed from merging various Turkic speaking tribes. The Uzbeks did not have a Mongol origin, but rather grew out of a mingling of ancient, settled Iranian populations with a variety of nomadic Turkic tribes that invaded the region between the 11th and the 15th century. One theory suggests that the Kazakhs of the Senior Juz and Middle Juz were the descendants of nomadic Uzbeks. Vofa (talk) 17:38, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The sources I have provided clearly indicate that the Kazakh ethnic group emerged from a merging of both Turkic and Mongolic groups, as outlined in well-established academic research. However, you are dismissing these studies and papers from respected journals and institutions. Your response seems based on personal opinions rather than credible sources. It’s essential to rely on academic research and a full range of credible sources to understand these complex historical origins accurately. Nomadichistory (talk) 17:57, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You must cite reliable sources when adding or editing existing content to an article. This seems to be a recurring issue for you. Your edit summaries are often vague and unhelpful, which does not help convince other editors of your edits' reliability, especially if you do not include sources. Adding or changing content without citing reliable sources can be interpreted as original research, i.e. claims you came up with. Yue🌙17:07, 22 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Your recent editing history at Bashkirs shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war; read about how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.
Being involved in an edit war can result in being blocked from editing—especially as the page in question is currently under restrictions from the Arbitration Committee, if you violate the one-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than one revert on a single page with active Arbitration Committee restrictions within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the one-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you do not violate the one-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. Stop edit warring, especially when you add random spelling + removing a source and [citation needed]. Beshogur (talk) 17:51, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Examples: edit-warring [1], this stuff [2], [3]. Please read WP:DR, and please change your approach. I am worried that if you keep editing like this, you are going to be blocked indefinitely. -- asilvering (talk) 09:27, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I am indeed. Is that a problem? In retrospect I am a bit worried I overstepped here. But as I said above in reply to the block notice, I am really concerned they're headed for a worse outcome if they don't pull a 180 here. -- asilvering (talk) 18:05, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hello! Voting in the 2024 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 2 December 2024. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.
Hi Vofa! I noticed that you recently marked an edit as minor at Finnish language that may not have been. "Minor edit" has a specific definition on Wikipedia—it refers only to superficial edits that could never be the subject of a dispute, such as typo corrections or reverting obvious vandalism. Any edit that changes the meaning of an article is not a minor edit, even if it only concerns a single word. Thank you. Mellk (talk) 09:16, 4 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Vofa, I see you mostly haven't been getting replies to your questions about these warnings. Not all editors will be watching your talk page or subscribing to the section when they're leaving these, so you may have to ping them or visit their talk page to get their attention. -- asilvering (talk) 23:20, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hey. I don’t think there were citations on the text I deleted. I guess the issue seems to be from a lack of description for my edits. Vofa (talk) 20:59, 22 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war. This means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be although other editors disagree. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus, rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.
Points to note:
Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made;
Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.
Hello Vofa, may you be surrounded by peace, success and happiness on this seasonal occasion. Spread the WikiLove by wishing another user a Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Sending you heartfelt and warm greetings for Christmas and New Year 2025. Happy editing, Abishe (talk) 22:03, 24 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
1) Minor edits:
See what to mark as minor and what not to mark as minor. If you are in doubt, don't mark anything as minor, as this is something optional. This recent edit [4] shouldn't have been marked as minor.
2) Removing sources or sourced information without explaining the reason:
For example, in this edit [5], you removed several sources and sourced content without explaining. In this 5 January 2025 edit, you again removed sources and sourced content by simply saying "Restored".
3) Removing sources or sourced information without giving an adequate reason.
For example, in these edit [6], you said "removed text not relevant to Chagatai Khanate and Golden Horde in introduction". The information is actually in page 7 in the book The Rise and Rule of Tamerlane.
Hello. Remember to assume good faith, this is a threat.
I did not have a better way to name the region where some scholars and researchers think the Turkic languages might have originated from. Note, the sentence says “Candidates for Turkic language homeland range from …”
Understood! Original research is not allowed on Wikipedia. Sorry for This misunderstanding! I have also reviewed the guidelines and will make sure to not make the same mistake again. Vofa (talk) 16:44, 7 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hey! I'm half out of line here, I missed that this was you removing Aynu from Siberian Turkic, which is distinct from your prior claims that it's not Turkic. Sorry for coming in hot, and I've reverted that change. Understand that considering your historical editing around this it's not unreasonable for editors to misread you removing yet more Aynu Turkic content, but I absolutely should have caught the distinction.Warrenᚋᚐᚊᚔ11:43, 7 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hello. Per Wikipedia:Speedy deletion#A10, this is intended for recently created articles. Since that article was created in 2020 and has had hundreds of edits from dozens of editors, it is not a good fit for this template. If you wish, you may consider WP:AFD instead, but I encourage you to discuss this on the article's talk page, first. Thanks. Grayfell (talk) 18:35, 11 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
You restored a citation needed template on the lead when leads are not supposed to have citations, you restored a clarification needed template when I had already clarified who, many of your edits worsened the grammar notably by removing "the"s unnecessarily, you added a duplicate link, you reverted me changing a link from a redirect to the target article, you restored wording ("prohibition") not present in the cited source. SuperΨDro16:35, 21 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Your recent editing history shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war; read about how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.
Being involved in an edit war can result in you being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you do not violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. 84.251.164.143 (talk) 13:24, 30 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hello! I'm Austronesier. I just wanted to let you know that your recent edit(s) to the page Uralic languages have been reverted because they appear to have added incorrect information. If you believe the information you added was correct, please cite a reliable source, discuss it on the article's talk page, or leave me a message on my talk page. If you would like to experiment, please use your sandbox. Please become familiar with the basics of contemporary Uralic studies and don't mess with sourced content.Austronesier (talk) 18:06, 30 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hello! I do not remember adding anything new. Though, I did remove unsourced content and attempted to improve grammar. Vofa (talk) 22:07, 30 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hello @ToBeFree, I understand your decision to block me from editing Uralic languages page.
However, I did not view my changes as controversial at the time.
I outlined the timeline of events on ANI, hoping that it would be read and compared.
Lastly, I could not communicate with the user(s) that seemed to have issues with my edits. Thus, even if the Notifications folder was not broken for me, it would have been still considerably difficult to communicate with both of them, due to both users appearing unregistered and lacking a talk page. Vofa (talk) 15:16, 1 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hello Vofa, neither do unregistered users lack a talk page (just create it, it works, with notifications), nor would their talk page be the best place to discuss anyway; all you need is the article's talk page. The users' individual talk pages and noticeboards are unsuitable for discussing article content; they are places where users can be invited to existing article talk discussions or where conduct can be discussed. It is generally advisable to focus on content, though, and that's on the article's talk page. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 15:18, 1 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I did not know how to create a talk page for said users, however that point is moot as you have pointed out.
I was not confident that the users would participate on the article’s talk page if it were made.
However, I found out that one of them had already started a discussion on the article’s talk page, and, I did not know about its existence for at least the first 11 hours since its creation. Vofa (talk) 15:35, 1 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
All good, no worries. The block doesn't prevent you from discussing there (or, if the discussion changed your opinion or it doesn't seem worth the time and effort, from disengaging from the entire conflict). ~ ToBeFree (talk) 16:48, 1 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I believe that the article should be protected.
I do note that, I will disengage from the conflict (if you can call it as such) but maintain the dispute, which I want to be highlighted in the article. Vofa (talk) 17:48, 1 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Vofa Please do not edit the Uralic languages article saying that there is a dispute on whether the Samoyedic languages are Uralic. Right now there is no consensus at all that such information should be added to the article. If you want the information to be there and you are not happy with the outcome of the talk page discussion, Wikipedia:Consensus#By soliciting outside opinions gives some methods by which you can get more uninvolved parties to evaluate the issue. But this should be done before making such edits. Stockhausenfan (talk) 14:36, 13 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
i did not plan to edit the article after what happened, but you have spiked my interest with this message of yours.
One party did not seek compromise after the page was edited by others and the change remained in place
while consensus mechanism can be properly utilised, its far from perfect. forming a consensus takes time and effort. what to do if the other side does not follow the procedure? what to do if their account was created yesterday and they already know more than you? all in all, its not fair to state that Samoyedic languages are undisputed. Vofa (talk) 16:50, 13 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I've undone your last two edits at Talk:Pope Leo XIV because they screwed up the archiving; deleted comments by others; and by your own words the first had restored the wrong section.
If it was your intention to restore the "abuse" section then I note that you replied to someone else saying:
This is not the best way to present information to a reader, which is what we should be aiming for and can hopefully discuss when the article is more stable. Perhaps in a few days we will also see if RS still give the topic as much independent focus
This is not the first time you're falsyfing content here. Changing context of the sources under "cleanup" cover and tagging cn tag to a source "Author makes bold claim without references" that says Bulgars spoke Turkic, while it's document that they spoke isn't wp:gf. Beshogur (talk) 23:40, 30 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Irenchev until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.
Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article until the discussion has finished.
You removed letters ğ, q, ı from the spelling of article of Ğabdulla Tuqay. Why?
I added them back because these are all part of Tatar in the Latin script. Your version left it as a mix of Russian transliteration and Tatar Latin, which makes no sense. Samioğlu (talk) 08:15, 28 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
When you return to editing the project, please come to WP:ANI and respond to the questions about some of your editing decisions. The sooner the better. Thank you. LizRead!Talk!07:32, 2 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Please do not recreate the material without addressing these concerns, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If you think this page should not have been deleted for this reason, or you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator, or if you have already done so, you can place a request here. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 08:43, 11 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, I'm Donald Albury. I noticed that you added or changed content in an article, White people in the Bahamas, but you didn't provide a reliable source. On Wikipedia, it's important that article content be verifiable. If you'd like to resubmit your change with a citation, your edit is archived in the page history. If you think I made a mistake, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Please do not change content that is cited to a source without verifying that the cited source supports the new content, or providing a new source that supports the new content.Donald Albury17:26, 13 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
hello Donald. i used the cited source already present in the article to change the population of said demographic (as of 2010) Vofa (talk) 11:46, 14 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, i could not access WP for 9 days (before the ANI started and after) because i could not charge my tablet. Vofa (talk) 12:32, 25 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
You have been blocked from editing for a period of 1 month for repeated violations of your topic ban. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions.
shame!! wikipedia has truly become a libel. the blocking policy says that blocks should not be used to punish or, if there are no issues with conduct. appeals look same. the thought was "edit genuine spelling mistakes in geographic, biographic topic pages after the block expires and if there is an absolute need, use talk page." there is also an issue when the accused doesn't know about what's happening. on its face, the initial block was unjust, the process of applying for an unban is not for everyone. i also happened to forget if my block expired. i did not use a sock puppet, the blocked ip is mine. sorry, this will not go on for long, i wanted to keep the message short originally. bureaucrats can continue editing as they were. kept a list of articles which needed grammar improvements e.g extra space, lacking numerals.Composite of a composite, colorized.Vofa (talk) 01:14, 23 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
You're not going to get very far with this approach. There are issues with conduct. Even if you somehow innocently forgot the exact date your block from violating your topic ban ended and didn't notice because you were accidentally logged out, you not-so-innocently violated your topic ban on ethnic, national, and/or linguistic history topics, broadly construed with all of those edits. Even if your month-long block was over, you'd likely be facing an indefinite block anyway for violating your topic ban an additional six more times.
Honestly addressing your behavior is more likely to get your block lifted at some point than playing the victim. So, the question is, do you want to return to editing here? That will have to be a choice you make. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 03:02, 23 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, I'm Chaotic Enby. I wanted to let you know that one or more of your recent contributions to Tatars have been undone because they did not appear constructive. If you would like to experiment, please use your sandbox. If you have any questions, you can ask for assistance at the Teahouse or the Help desk. Thanks. ChaotıċEnby(t · c) 19:51, 8 January 2024 (UTC)
There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Beshogur (talk) 21:14, 23 October 2024 (UTC)
Your disruptive edits in Nganasan language and Nganasan people were reverted. --Altenmann >talk 17:51, 18 November 2024 (UTC)
You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war. This means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be although other editors disagree. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus, rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.
You have recently made edits related to Armenia, Azerbaijan, or related conflicts. This is a standard message to inform you that Armenia, Azerbaijan, or related conflicts is a designated contentious topic. This message does not imply that there are any issues with your editing. For more information about the contentious topics system, please see Wikipedia:Contentious topics. Bogazicili (talk) 16:02, 21 December 2024 (UTC)
Please do not add or change content, as you did at Keegan-Michael Key, without citing a reliable source. Please review the guidelines at Wikipedia:Citing sources and take this opportunity to add references to the article. Thank you. — Chrisahn (talk) 16:13, 7 February 2025 (UTC)
The page Template:List of Nogais has been speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This was done for the following reason:
